Re: Fwd: Minutes / Notes

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Well, this is one of the many "shoulds" in our agreed list
of goals. Whether we can achieve this "should" simultaneously
with enough of the others is very much an open question
in my mind, and it's one of the reasons why we may end up
with more than one solution. In some scenarios, this may
be a dominant goal; in other scenarios, it may be unimportant.

  Brian

"Grovesteen, Harold" wrote:
> 
> YES!
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Li [mailto:Tony.Li@procket.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 12:38 PM
> To: J. Noel Chiappa; multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Fwd: Minutes / Notes
> 
> Noel,
> 
> |    This is only important if you want TCP connections to be
> |    able to survive
> |    having an incoming link fail (i.e. the address on the
> |    local end becomes
> |    unreachable to the rest of the network). This may not be
> |    an important goal
> |    (e.g. the typical web site wouldn't care).
> 
> I believe that the WG has come to rough consensus that this is,
> in fact, an important goal for us to solve.  There are
> numerous practical applications that drive this.  More generally,
> we (IETF, vendors) are being asked to make the Internet safe
> for "mission critical" applications and having broken TCP
> connections is simply unacceptable.  Many applications today
> are being outsourced: backups, storage, business applications,
> interactions within an 'extra-net', etc.
> 
> Tony